If god(s) existed, they would most likely prefer atheists over theists.
The resolution is a simple one, namely that if there is some manner of god which has produced the human race for some grand purpose, it is more likely that such a purpose is hostile to the intents and activities and beliefs of theists and approving of the intents or activities or beliefs of atheists.
The debate itself is one to be accepted and argued in good faith; The definitions used, argued against, and spoken to are to be those definitions which best match context and intent as used; if an equivocation is made, however, such a thing would go directly against good faith. While there are other aspects to acting in good faith, however, I'll leave those up to good faith. I have left "god" quite open; there will never be agreement over what qualities a "god" might have, so in this case the only assumed thing is that "god" describes some entity that created human beings for some intent specific to that being; any additional traits that are either impossible or necessary for such a being are in fact a subject of the debate itself.
It is my burden as PRO to make a logical argument to this effect, and it is CON's burden to establish the liklihood of a purpose hostile to atheists. This being a shared BOP, the resolution will not be negated by merely arguing neutrality of purpose to all parties; such a position would be grounds for a tie between the expected positions of PRO and CON and grounds for a tie regardless of other factors.
Neither PRO nor CON shall assume the validity of any particular theology, though either side may argue from reason that some particular purpose for humanity is more likely than some other purpose for humanity, and either side may canvas across known theolgies to evaluate them as a group. Further, neither PRO nor CON will be allowed to argue that the purpose of humanity is unknowable and mysterious. This is not to be a debate over some specific purpose, but rather a debate of conjecture given the nature of humanity as to what is more LIKELY the purpose.
Finally, arguments from ignorance or assertion fallacies are not to be acceptable forms of argument, nor is any other fallacious form. All that is necessary to establish a fallacy is to break down the basic form of the argument in question, and put it side-by-side to the form of the fallacy in question; Defense may be made by pointing out valid differences between the fallacious form and the actual form. It is to be noted that certain forms of fallacies are only sometimes fallacies, such as slippery slope (which is valid if it is demonstrable that ethics compromised in later steps are actually being compromised in part by the step proposed) and argument from tradition (which can be used to defend a practice in the presence of absolute ignorance otherwise, but not against evidence or reason that the tradition itself may be faulty).
I Am New To This So.... This Is All Know The definition for atheism that we use, put simply, says that atheism is the lack of a god-belief, the absence of theism, to whatever degree and for whatever reason. The one thing that all atheists have in common, according to this definition, is that they are not theists. One either believes one or more of the various claims for the existence of a god or gods (is a theist) or one does not believe any of those claims (is an atheist). Though we do not recognize any "middle ground," we do acknowledge the agnostic position, which spans both theism and atheism: a theistic agnostic thinks one or more gods exist but can say no more on the subject than this (is a theist); an atheistic agnostic doesn't know if any gods exist (lacks a god belief, and is thus an atheist). Noncognitivists think all god-talk is meaningless, and thus lack any god beliefs (are atheists).
This, our working definition for the meaning of the words atheism and atheist, is known as the weak definition for the word atheism. We will cover several aspects of this definition during this discussion.
To assume that atheism involves more than the absence of theism is an error. Atheists are not necessarily Communists  (though some are). Atheists are not necessarily immoral or "wicked"  (though some are). Atheists do not necessarily assert that "no gods exist" (though some do). Atheism is but one component of an atheist's larger philosophical outlook and can influence that outlook, but atheism is never itself that primary outlook.
Some atheists simply lack belief (or even awareness) while others have carefully considered the various claims and have either found them unconvincing or have flat-out rejected them as pure falsehood. Even if a person has never heard someone claim that a god or gods exist, that person lacks theism and is therefore, technically, an atheist. Nevertheless, most atheists would convert to theism if presented with a convincing argument, be they people who have yet to encounter claims for the existence of gods, or be they people who have honestly and carefully considered and rejected those claims that they have encountered.
One very important feature of the atheistic position is the fact that we are dealing entirely with claims -- claims that various deities exist. In discussing claims, it is always the person making the claim who is responsible for providing evidence and strong argument. The person listening to the claim need not make any argument at all. And the listener does not need to disprove a claim in order to reject it. If the person making the claim fails to make a convincing case, the listener rightly rejects the claim as falsehood (or suspends judgment, based upon the strength of the claim). In either event, the listener ends up lacking a belief in the object of the claim. While the world's atheists have assembled a vast and powerful arsenal of anti-theistic arguments, it is never the atheist's responsibility to prove or disprove anything. That job belongs to the person making the claim, which, in this discussion, is the theist.
And in lieu of hearing a convincing argument for the existence of gods, we remain without theistic beliefs: We remain atheists.
Noting CON's failure to either post acceptance, and his apparent misunderstanding of the position which he agreed to argue, I respectfully offer him a TIE rather than to have either of us waste any more time here. I'd request that if and when he logs on, that he blank post his rounds so that this train wreck can get resolved as quickly as possible.
brandonhall.7370013 forfeited this round.
Instead, we exist with senses which see the universe, and reason to ascertain the inputs of those senses. Those senses do not give men a clear knowledge of gods. For those who spend most of their effort on that observation and in the application of reason, it is the case that atheism is the overwhelming conclusion or at least agnosticism. It makes no sense that we would be intended to not be all that we are.
Second, by examining the reasons for which WE would create intelligent life, we gain insight into why gods may do the same. Some people would make life to torture it, but why would we live and accept such a vile purpose? Some people might make life to toady over them, but if you select only those who toady, how is it any different from just making them to do so from the start? In any case you end up only with beings who could never not grovel. Some people may make intelligent life to serve them, but then why make something so belligerent as humans? Finally, people may make people to expand the population of rational yet creative minds, creative peers who would make them greater through community. But such is not possible from the position of theism, where answers are spoon fed and questions are discouraged.
Finally, what person has more value? The one who does what he is told no matter what, even if it means hanging blacks or burning Jews, simply for fear of the stick or lust of the carrot? Or is it the person who uses his or her mind, discerns what is right from secular reasoning, and strives every day to do what is right, without guarantee of reward or knowledge of punishment? And who is to even know which story circulated among men is right?
It only makes sense given the above that gods would most likely prefer an atheist, if they preferred any world view.
brandonhall.7370013 forfeited this round.
brandonhall.7370013 forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|